Here to clear up a few things:

1) All journals receive hoaxes at times, and it is not always caught immediately. As pointed out by a previous poster, many peer reviewed journals had accepted hoax papers.

2) New Scientist claims Bentham only published the paper to find out the identity of the true hoaxer.

3) You [cam] are debating the credibility of the journal based upon one hoax to attack Jones' research. This is irrelevant.

4) You [cam] have not touched on what is wrong actually with Jones' paper.

5) Even if Jones' paper was not peer reviewed, if it were flawed, the 911 "debunkers" would be all over it, citing it at any chance to strike at the 911 truth movement, and here you are making petty arguments over nothing.

6) You [cam] don't actually have an argument, you are just slinging mud. To be fair, you tried to present a speck of pseudo-argument [really just mudslinging] in the beginning [calling the journal not credible, trying to transfer property to Jones].

7) All aspects of your "argument" and "logic" have been over the course of this thread proven to be not sound and all hope of you convincing anyone has long been extinguished since the end of the first page.

8) The gist of your argument is this:

Johnny is a reputable apple-picker and has consistently picked good apples. One day Johnny picked a bad apple. Therefore, [can't tell what you are trying to say] either:
a) all apples picked by Johnny must be bad and we can never trust Johnny, or
b) one specific apple previously picked by Johnny a long time ago [an apple called Steven Jones' paper] that is irrelevant to the bad apple must also be bad

Neither one of these conclusions that you are arguing can be derived from the argument.



So please, just give up now cameronfox, before you really get embarrassed.